Feasibility of Translating Laboratory Findings into Dietary Routines: Omega-3 Fatty Acids Regimen in High Risk Breast Cancer Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family history, abnormal pathology related to breast biopsy, and/or personal history of breast cancer are factors that place women at highest risk for breast cancer development. Animal studies using omega 3 fatty acid supplementation have demonstrated a protective effect on breast tissue. At this institution, an IRB-approved study is ongoing to measure the effects of increased dietary intake of fish rich in omega 3 fatty acids versus omega 3 supplementation on breast adipose and serum fatty acid profiles. As a corollary to this study, a 13-item self-report questionnaire was developed for administration at the end of the study period to measure patient-reported outcomes, patient patterns and overall patient satisfaction with the intervention. The objective of this questionnaire was to evaluate the patients’ perspectives of their participation in the study and how likely they might be to continue the proposed regimen given positive study outcomes. Interim examination of the data demonstrated complaints of brief periods of symptoms, such as ‘upset stomach’ and ‘headache’ among the first participants to complete the study. Several participants reported a feeling of accomplishment. When asked if they could sustain a diet with multiple servings of omega 3 rich fish per week, participants indicated that it would be difficult. Innovative recipes or inclusion of formal dietary guidance may be helpful. These limited findings address the importance of patient-reported outcomes that may help individualize and tailor preventive interventions into daily living.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".